The Martin Chronicles firmly believe all of us are blessed to live in The United States of America. People elect their leadership. Elections have consequences. Sometimes the result of an election put someone in office who is, shall we say, not up to par. While complaining about Presidents, Governors, County Judge Executives, Mayors and other elected officials is our right, the removal of an elected official from office is a serious matter. An action like removal should only be done for the correct reasons.
This may shock some of our readers. But in an odd way The Martin Chronicles agrees with the clueless former councilwomen who recently posted Letters to the Editor supporting Mayor Martin. It is not correct to remove elected officials simply because you dislike them. It is not correct to remove an elected official because you disagree with their policy initiatives. It is not correct to remove an elected official because they are inarticulate or unprofessional. In many cases, it is not correct to remove an elected official because they habitually lie. Depending of course on what they are lying about. All of the preceding would be great reasons to vigorously campaign against such an official the next time they stand for re-election. As we have written before, that is the American Way.
The Kentucky Revised Statutes spell out the correct grounds for removal of an elected official. These grounds can be found in KRS 83A.040(9). Here they are:
1. Misconduct;
2. Incapacity; or
3. Willful neglect in the performance of the duties of the office as required by law.
· If it is determined that the mayor has been operating his business even some years without an occupational license, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor has been doing electrical, plumbing work or commercial without the required licenses, that is something that should be seriously considered. These offenses also carry the potential of fines and jail sentence.
· If it is determined that there is an intentional pattern of failure to obtain proper permits for home improvement work being done by the mayor, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that there has been any evasion of State, County or City taxes or fees, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor engaged in the willful destruction of City property, that is something that should be seriously considered. Crushing a safe open with a backhoe may be more than just an incredibly stupid thing to do.
· If it is determined that the mayor improperly utilized city equipment and/or personnel for political reasons, that is something that should be seriously considered. Keep in mind that the City’s Ethics Board believed that Martin and Councilman Jim Noll did that very thing and are issuing both “confidential reprimands”.
· If it is determined that the mayor improperly removed taxpayer-funded property from the city building, that is something that should be seriously considered. It is hard to make a credible case that computers located at employee work stations are “in storage”.
· If it is determined that the mayor provided untruthful answers to questions posed by the Ethics Committee in the course of an official investigation, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor made a conscious decision to interfere with the distribution of information to employees and other elected officials they require to properly perform their jobs, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor made the conscious decision to hold back the release of requested public documents for any reason outside the guidelines spelled out in the Kentucky Revised Statutes, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor engaged in retaliatory or harassing behavior against employees, or ignored warnings that others were engaging in such behavior, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor stated that he was unable to properly perform his duties as mayor because of the advice given to him by his personal attorney, that is something that should seriously be considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor disregarded the City Attorney’s advice regarding alleged harassing behavior and in fact condoned the continued contact between the alleged harasser and the City employee, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor engaged in the willful destruction of City records in the middle of a serious lawsuit and Special Counsel investigation, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor prepared false documents in an attempt to cover his tracks in the willful destruction of City records, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor has been arranging and conducting meetings in violation of the Open Meetings statute, that is something that should be seriously considered.
Any of the preceding sixteen issues, if proven, would warrant removal from office. Elected officials have been removed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for far less severe offenses. If several of these are proven, the decision should become even clearer.
It must be noted that KRS 83A.040(9) states that misconduct, incapacity or willful neglect may result in removal from office. In a legal sense, may is a far different word than shall. There must be a unanimous vote by council to remove the mayor from office.
No one should vote to remove Martin because they are sore over the results of the 2010 election. They shouldn’t remove him because he has baseless delusions of grandeur or because they don’t like his chair spinning, speech crutches or gum chomping. Frankly, they will have ample reason to vote to remove him while ignoring all of that. The irony is that the current mayor made such a “holy stink” about his version of “truth and integrity” in the 2010 election.
It is likely that the residents, and city council, will be presented with a grim picture involving many moving parts that have been operated by a mayor who has something other than the best interests of the City in mind.
But, anyone who has been paying attention knows that there are two members on council who will have a very difficult time voting for Martin’s removal. Even if the mayor ends up facing charges brought by a variety of outside agencies. It is hard for anyone to admit they were wrong. There are personal grudges and alliances involved. History has shown us it is particularly difficult for these two councilmen to ever admit they were wrong.
Let’s imagine that one, some or all of the preceding sixteen issues are proven by Special Counsel in the coming weeks. Then let’s imagine that at least one of the two aforementioned councilmen still refuses to vote for removal. The voters will then be presented with the opportunity to remove one councilman from office and defeat another in his State Senate run on Tuesday, November 6.
November 6 is a mere 235 days away. The Martin Chronicles hopes a majority of the voters are paying far more attention than they did in 2010.
